How Has Nintendo Revolutionised the Gaming Industry?

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Are you talking about the MicroVision when you say Milton Bradley? I own one, it doesn't have a D-pad, it has a turnable nob like an Atari 2600 paddle controller.

Emerald_Warrior

I don't need to research something that I physically own. I can just look at it.

But just for you, here's a pic I found online:

bron.

Your age means you were born the year the 2600 launched, this means that by the time you were like 5 or 6 before your parents started buying you games the crash was already there. Or just about to happen, and the NES was coming out in japan. Also you use anecdotal evidence, most of Ataris profits where from its consoles after the very quick rise in popularity of the 2600. Ataris arcade business was huge but got less and less as time went on, eventually to the point where they published their own games on others systems as MAttel and Coleco did (the idea was to make those versions look bad to get people to buy colecos and intels, but to be honest I thik that was a dumb idea since it would have been illegal to make those versions unplayable so at the end of the day the atari version got ate up more.) As for you saying that failed to capture the success, Atari did not have the money to be putting as much effort and power. But saying the 7800 and Lynx failed is just wrong. The 7800 showed that Atari still had a nice market and it sold around 4 million on;ly being released in the U.S. I don't count the late and limited European release. And the Lynx had a solid library of doezens of games also selling a few mill. Only failure I can see from them is the Jaguar. Oh and 5200 I guess.ImJESUS-PROam

It doesn't matter -why- they failed. Saying that Atari didn't have the resources to put behind their later consoles doesn't change or excuse them doing poorly.

The Atari 7800's numbers were crap compared to the 8-bit NES that sold more than 10 times the number of units IN SPITE of the fact that the 7800 was backwards compatible with existing 2600 games.

The Lynx sold less than 500k units over its lifespan while it's direct competition, the Gameboy, sold over 100 MILLION units. Of course, words like "failure" can be subjective, but when your total sales numbers represent less than .005% that of your competition, I'd say you didn't do so hot. :lol:

-Byshop

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

I don't need to research something that I physically own. I can just look at it.

But just for you, here's a pic I found online:

Emerald_Warrior

That's a game cartridge, not the console. And that isn't a D-pad anyways, those are membrane keys, like on the Magnovox Odyssey 2.

Since you don't believe me, here's a pick of my very own MicroVision, I even have the original box still:

 bron. ImJESUS-PROam

Bronn. What about him?

-Byshop

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"]

bron.

Your age means you were born the year the 2600 launched, this means that by the time you were like 5 or 6 before your parents started buying you games the crash was already there. Or just about to happen, and the NES was coming out in japan. Also you use anecdotal evidence, most of Ataris profits where from its consoles after the very quick rise in popularity of the 2600. Ataris arcade business was huge but got less and less as time went on, eventually to the point where they published their own games on others systems as MAttel and Coleco did (the idea was to make those versions look bad to get people to buy colecos and intels, but to be honest I thik that was a dumb idea since it would have been illegal to make those versions unplayable so at the end of the day the atari version got ate up more.) As for you saying that failed to capture the success, Atari did not have the money to be putting as much effort and power. But saying the 7800 and Lynx failed is just wrong. The 7800 showed that Atari still had a nice market and it sold around 4 million on;ly being released in the U.S. I don't count the late and limited European release. And the Lynx had a solid library of doezens of games also selling a few mill. Only failure I can see from them is the Jaguar. Oh and 5200 I guess.Byshop

It doesn't matter -why- they failed. Saying that Atari didn't have the resources to put behind their later consoles doesn't change or excuse them doing poorly.

The Atari 7800's numbers were crap compared to the 8-bit NES that sold more than 10 times the number of units IN SPITE of the fact that the 7800 was backwards compatible with existing 2600 games.

The Lynx sold less than 500k units over its lifespan while it's direct competition, the Gameboy, sold over 100 MILLION units. Of course, words like "failure" can be subjective, but when your total sales numbers represent less than .005% that of your competition, I'd say you didn't do so hot. :lol:

-Byshop

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"] You own something you know nothing about. You do this but don't find out a bit more about the Microvision while you are finding a random picture on google? ImJESUS-PROam

That's a game cartridge, not the console. And that isn't a D-pad anyways, those are membrane keys, like on the Magnovox Odyssey 2.

Since you don't believe me, here's a pick of my very own MicroVision, I even have the original box still:

It doesn't have a D-Pad at all. I've taken my apart to repair it before. It has a soft almost foam-like square underneath that (which is what I had to replace, as it was worn out), and under that it has some pressure sensitive areas.

A D-pad is much different. A D-pad has actual buttons that can be depressed, and respend to wired switches inside.

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"]

Again, no, it was designed before the NES, but not released until after the NES. And if you never mentioned it, then what is this?

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"]Well, the home console market in the U.S. wasn't really dead, it was just not making much money, only the big companies put out what people wanted to buy. You can see that with the 7800, the market was still there. Oddly enough though, it was through monopolized practices, I never considered gaming myself to come back until the 4th gen since people had no re4stirctions and could go about putting games where they wanted.Emerald_Warrior

Regardless though, I did say "I think". So it was indeed an assumption on my part. So if that wasn't what you were referring to, then my bad.

Here's some research that you keep asking for, but I original learned this in the "Ultimate History of Gaming" book:

The 7800 was initially released in southern California in June 1984[citation needed], following an announcement on May 21, 1984 at the Summer Consumer Electronics Show.[1] 13 games were announced for the system's launch, including Ms. Pac-Man, Pole Position II, Centipede, Joust, Dig Dug, Desert Falcon, Robotron: 2084, Galaga, Xevious, Food Fight, Ballblazer, Rescue on Fractalus!, and Track and Field. Atari was a sponsor of the 1984 Summer Olympics and planned to push the 7800 aggressively in time for Christmas that year.

On July 2, 1984, Warner Communications sold Atari's Consumer Division to Jack Tramiel.[5] All projects were halted during an initial evaluation period. Modern publications have often incorrectly asserted that Jack Tramiel mothballed the Atari 7800 feeling video games were a past fad and subsequently asserted that he dusted off the Atari 7800 once the Nintendo NES became successful. The reality was that a contractual issue arose in that GCC had not been paid for their development of the 7800. Warner and Tramiel battled back and forth over who was accountable, with Tramiel believing that the 7800 should have been covered as part of his acquisition deal. In May 1985, Jack relented and paid GCC the overdue payment. This led to additional negotiations regarding the initial launch titles that GCC had developed and then an effort to find someone to lead their new video game division, which was completed in November 1985.[6]

The original production run of the Atari 7800 languished on warehouse shelves until it was re-introduced in January 1986 after strong 2600 sales the previous Christmas.[7]

Atari's launch of the 7800 under Tramiel was far more subdued than Warner had planned for the system in 1984 with a marketing budget of just $300,000. Additionally, the keyboard and high score cartridge were canceled, the expansion port was removed from later production runs of the system and, in lieu of new titles, the system was launched with titles intended for the 7800's debut in 1984.

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

That's a game cartridge, not the console. And that isn't a D-pad anyways, those are membrane keys, like on the Magnovox Odyssey 2.

Since you don't believe me, here's a pick of my very own MicroVision, I even have the original box still:

Emerald_Warrior

It doesn't have a D-Pad at all. I've taken my apart to repair it before. It has a soft almost foam-like square underneath that (which is what I had to replace, as it was worn out), and under that it has some pressure sensitive areas.

A D-pad is much different. A D-pad has actual buttons that can be depressed, and respend to wired switches inside.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"] Hmm. The Microvision had several different types of control systems, each of which was incorporated separately into its cartridge designs. That basically meant that each cartridge itself contained the actual pad design, and underneath the cartridge was contained the underlying switches. Cosmic Hunter was a Microvision cartridge that had a D-pad, A four-directional switch which can be turned on and off in four directions, which comprises a base plate having a plurality of electrodes formed thereon (Microvision has this), a key top having an indication showing predetermined four pressing directions in an identifiable manner (Microvision's Cosmic Hunter game adds this), a support member constituting a fulcrum between the base plate and the key top, a plurality of conductive rubbers disposed opposing to the plurality of electrodes so as to be in electrical contact with corresponding ones of the electrodes (the microvision has this too), and a sustaining member having the plurality of conductive rubbers fixed thereto and having elastic force for sustaining the conductive rubbers so as not to be in contact with the electrodes when the key top is not pressed. (and this too). The only difference Nintendo's and MV's D-pad is ince sthe top of the keypad is built into the cartridge itself, it can be removed. It works exactly the same.ImJESUS-PROam

It doesn't have a D-Pad at all. I've taken my apart to repair it before. It has a soft almost foam-like square underneath that (which is what I had to replace, as it was worn out), and under that it has some pressure sensitive areas.

A D-pad is much different. A D-pad has actual buttons that can be depressed, and respend to wired switches inside.

No it's not. You're claiming that membrane keys are the same thing as d-pads. They aren't, at all. They look different, they feel different, they react differently, and they work differently.

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Emerald_Warrior

In a limited test market, in one city, and then it was pulled. Hardly a full release and far from saving a dead market. I mentioned it because you were saying that it was released before the NES, and you then said you never said that.

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

It doesn't have a D-Pad at all. I've taken my apart to repair it before. It has a soft almost foam-like square underneath that (which is what I had to replace, as it was worn out), and under that it has some pressure sensitive areas.

A D-pad is much different. A D-pad has actual buttons that can be depressed, and respend to wired switches inside.

Emerald_Warrior

No it's not. You're claiming that membrane keys are the same thing as d-pads. They aren't, at all. They look different, they feel different, they react differently, and they work differently.

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"] I heard the Lynx sold 1 million or so but either way, I don't get how the Lynx or 7800 where failures at all. Sales numbers don't mean anything, companies play profit, if I had stock in the 7800 and Lynx back then it would have gone up. I mean, you seem to let the GG have the slide but Sega losts otns of moeny on the GG and Nomad, yet out of the two only Atari walked out with a bag full of cash. The Wii made more money than the PS2 did, yet the PS2 had triple the sales, and at the same time, The Xbox sold more than the Gamecube, but the Xbox was 5x more in debt from it, while the Gamecube still had profits, even though it was mostly because of the GBA. If you removed that factor the Xbox still would have lost 4x as much regarding selling more.Byshop

Obviously it's more complex than -just- sales numbers, but you still need to sell units to make money. Sure, when comparing the Wii to the PS2 or the Xbox to the Gamecube you have to look at more than just the total units sold, but you're trying to compare the Lynx's situation against systems who's total sales numbers were in the 10s of millions of units.

The Lynx sold -less- than 500k. Even if I'm being generous and round that up to 1 million, that still ended up being the tiniest fragment of the handheld market share. The Lynx never got the 3rd party support and had the smallest game library of all of the handhelds of its generation by far (about 70, comapred to the Game Gear's library of over 300 games and the Gameboy's library of over 800).

The fact that Atari did not fold after the Lynx doesn't mean the Lynx was a rousing success for them, it just means that they at least broke even between the Lynx and all the other stuff they had going on.

-Byshop

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

In a limited test market, in one city, and then it was pulled. Hardly a full release and far from saving a dead market. I mentioned it because you were saying that it was released before the NES, and you then said you never said that.

Emerald_Warrior

You really think a console, released in a limited test market that sold abysmally means the market isn't dead? To point out the Atari 7800 as a reason why the home console market wasn't dead is about as laughable you claiming the Atari Lynx was a success for Atari. How can you possibly believe these claims when you have highly successful consoles all around them like the NES, Atari 2600, and Game Boy.

And what words am I replacing? I'm quoting your posts that you wrote, I'm not replacing anything.

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

You really think a console, released in a limited test market that sold abysmally means the market isn't dead? To point out the Atari 7800 as a reason why the home console market wasn't dead is about as laughable you claiming the Atari Lynx was a success for Atari. How can you possibly believe these claims when you have highly successful consoles all around them like the NES, Atari 2600, and Game Boy.

And what words am I replacing? I'm quoting your posts that you wrote, I'm not replacing anything.

Emerald_Warrior

And out of those 4 million, how many were after the re-release after NES was released, and how much was during that very limited 1984 release that you keep claiming meant home industry wasn't dead?

Not even 500,000 I'd be willing to bet.

The video crash of the 80s in the U.S. is a well documented event that isn't even a point of debate. The Atari 7800 didn't save it, not even freaking close. The NES did. I can't believe this has even been this big of a debate. There are entire books and websites dedicted to the crash.

Just because it was made then, doesn't mean the market wasn't dead. If stores don't want to carry your product, and video games are being sold for a fraction of the cost of their actual worth, then that's a dead market. And the Atari 7800 did nothing to help it. The NES on the other hand...

Ok than how about gamecube and PS2? THat's a big difference in sales a profits.

What did I -just- get done saying? You're comparing systems that have sales that are at a minimum in the 10s of millions to a system that sold 500k units against it's competitors that sold TENS OF MILLIONS of units.

Going from there, about half the Lynx's library was third-party support. I have no idea where this Lynx having no third-party came from. Lynx has imagitac, Tecmo, Namo, Gremlin, Quick Silver, DMA Design, Tradewest etc.

The system had 71 games TOTAL. The number of companies that make up those games doesn't really matter if they only make a couple games each.

Yes, it sold badly, but it still made money. The Lynx was on the market for like 6 or so year, and the Lynx did quite well with the amount it sold, it was more than just broke even. I highly doubt they would have a canned 32-bit console and then have the funding to switch to an advanced 64 bit console in a very short period of time if they only broke even. Again, the Gamecube is a good example. Intellivision is another. etc.

500k units over 6 years is horrible. Atari was also a software company at that time so it's not like the Lynx was their sole source of revenue, not to mention the money they were making on their various lawsuit settlements since they were suing practically everyone back then. You're just assuimg the Lynx must have been a success in spite of it's terrible numbers because Atari was able to come out with the Jaguar.

-Byshop

Byshop

The D-pad, Is Nintendo's longest lasting revolution to the Gaming industry. Before that Atari 2600, Intellivision, Colocovision etc Controllers were just Awful to use. A simple D-pad which was originally named the "cross key"

The D-pad is the one thing that really revolutionised the home videogame industry. Every Nintendo console has used the D-Pad (cross-key) NES,SNES,N64,Gamecube,Wii,Wii U,Gameboy,Gameboy color,Gameboy Advance, Nintendo DS,Nintendo 3DS

They have all featured the Nintendo created D-Pad.

Even today with Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 the Cross-key D-pad is still with us.

So if I had to pick 1 thing from Nintendo that revolutiuonised the gaming industry. The D-pad.

Megavideogamer

agreed

What do you think is Nintendo's most revolutionary system?

The NES. 

 What do you think is Nintendo's most revolutionary game(s)?

Super Mario Bros.  

What was the most important innovation that made Nintendo revolutionary? Most influential thing they've done to change how both they and other companies have made games and consoles?

Same answer for both: Nintendo brought to the mainstream the idea that a video game was something with a beginning and an end. Before the NES and Super Mario Bros. common perception amongst the general public was the a video game was a repetitive activity that you kept doing to obtain a high score. The NES, Super Mario Bros. and many other games in its library shattered that idea and made games that you could beat, games that took place in a distinctive setting or universe. The Mushroom Kingdom is a setting, an imaginary place. So are Hyrule, planet Zebes, Final Fantasy I's world, and so on. Before the NES, the only experiences that could allow you to immerse yourself in an imaginary universe were tabletop RPGs and a few very complicated, difficult to play and, compared to what the NES was offering out of the box, what seemed to be fairly primitive PC games, at least during the first couple of years of the NES' lifespan. Go play Dragon Warrior and then try to play one of the really early Ultima games and it's just no contest. As revolutionary and incredibly influential as those early Ultima games were, they felt outdated, primitive and nearly unplayable as soon as people were able to play Zelda, Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy. 

The idea that video games were more than beeps, bops and eye to hand coordination gameplay that awarded you with nothing but a score is something that, while it did exist before the NES, wasn't even remotely close to becoming part of mainstream culture. That's Nintendo's greatest achievement. 

Okay, you're right. All the countless documentation regarding it, Ultimate Gaming History book, Game Over, Wikipedia, G4 Icons, and countless other sources are all wrong. The market wasn't dead in the U.S. and was flourishing. You're points have proven decades of documented gaming history wrong. :roll:

No, you didn't specifically say the words "the Atari 7800 saved the market". But you pointed it out as a reason why the market wasn't dead. If that wasn't an insuation to it, I don't know what is.

And yes, some developers were doing okay. Most of them were also making PC games, though, which that market wasn't dead. The market also never died in Europe or Japan, so those that were international could sell in those regions. On the other hand, several more went under. Far, FAR more developers and console makers went under than survived. There's probably 3 times as many that went under than survived.

And you're really going to say the NES didn't do well until 3 years later? But at the same time claim that Atari 7800's 3.7 million and Atari Lynx's under 500,000 is impressive (or Colecovision's "succesful" 2 million)? So in Nintendo's case, they have to pull in huge numbers to be successful, but in Atari's case as long as they don't go under you consider it a success? Besides that: Super Mario Bros., The Legend of Zelda, Mega Man, Castlevania, Rad Racer, Metroid. These are genre defining games that re-established the way we play games for years and were all very successful. Super Mario Bros. alone sold millions of NES consoles.

And I don't know in what world you think $100 million is a good number for the video game industry. It went from that number to billions of dollars because of the NES. And before the crash happened it was making billions of dollars.

I mean come on, the NES was a cultural phenomenon. Video games went from something people considered a dead-fad, to becoming a household name. Mario became a household name overnight. Stores went from a glut of unsold game cartridges for pre-NES consoles, to consoles and NES games flying off the shelves. Before the NES, some retailers started refusing to carry video games altogether even. The NES is STILL a part of our culture. You see it all over the place on T-shirts, belt-buckles, posters, etc. still being sold to this day.

Again, like I've pointed out. This is a well documented, and well known part of gaming history. The home console market was, without a shadow of a doubt, dead in the U.S. before the NES came out and completely owned the home gaming industry until Sega could give them a run for their money. No matter how many random numbers you pull out, it doesn't change well-documented history. You could give me a list of 200 developers that were making games before the NES came out, and it just wouldn't matter because too many people back then just didn't care after the crash (especially retailers) until the NES came out. I was gaming when the NES was a brand-new system. There was a tangible excitement and sense of amazement with gamers back then when the NES came out.

Watch this video for some insight (G4 Icons was such a good show, wish it was still on); or even better, read "The Ultimate History of Gaming", it is a fantastic read I highly recommend if you're into the history of the game industry, so much insight in that book straight from developers and industry insider's mouths:

G4 Icon's video for the Video Game Crash:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuHbRPoOEEA

Ultimate History of Gaming Book Link:http://www.amazon.com/The-Ultimate-History-Video-Games/dp/0761536434/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366944488&sr=8-1&keywords=ultimate+history+of+gaming

Emerald_Warrior

I think we are wasting our breath. This guy's going to pimp Atari in spite of logic to the contrary.

-Byshop

I'm having deja vu... What was ImJESUS-PROam's previous username? I remember arguing with him (or someone just like him), denying the console game industry crash ever happened.

Anyway, if he's still going to deny it, here are some hard cold numbers of annual North American home video game market (i.e. excluding arcades) revenues:

1982 - $3.8 billion

1983 - $2 billion

1984 - $800 million

1985 - $100 million

1986 - $430 million

1987 - $750 million

1988 - $2.8 billion

1989 - $3.5 billion

1990 - $5.1 billion

In other words, the North American home video game industry dropped from $3.8 billion in 1982 to $100 million in 1985, with the majority of that $100 million coming from home computers. How can anyone possibly deny there wasn't any console industry crash? And then it went from $100 million in 1985 to $2.8 billion in 1987, so how can anyone deny the NES wasn't responsible for reviving the console gaming industry?

If that's not enough evidence, then just look at articles written during that time. One that immediately comes to mind is Electronic Games magazine, which in 1985 stated that the console gaming industry is dead and that personal computers are the future of home video gaming, cautioning Nintendo they are making a big mistake trying to release the NES to a dead console market (i.e. the same old "Nintendo is doomed" narrative).

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Except to be "revolutionary" you have to be the first at something. N64 was like the last. Sega already did it with the Saturn, Sony already did it with the PS1, and even Panasonic did it with the 3DO before N64 came out. That is unless you're confining this simply to Nintendo systems.

NES was far more revolutionary.

Emerald_Warrior

I thought we were just reffering to Ninty? I not then yeah NES for sure since it more or less invented home consoles.

Maybe you should use Turtletheaffer for this report, lol. First he says the N64 is the first 3D console, then he says NES invented home consoles.

Ummm, what about the real first home console, Magnavox Odyssey. Or how about the extremely popular Atari 2600? Colecovision? Intellivision?

Where did I say it was the first 3D console? Just saying that it definitely helped thigns out. And I said NES practically invented it... I know there are other systems besides the NES that were out before but the NES was more like the models we see today, where the others were different. It set the blue prints for future consoles.

Where did I say it was the first 3D console? Just saying that it definitely helped thigns out. And I said NES practically invented it... I know there are other systems besides the NES that were out before but the NES was more like the models we see today, where the others were different. It set the blue prints for future consoles.

turtlethetaffer

You didn't post this?

Most revolutionary system: N64. It showed with several different franchises that a transition from 2D to 3D can be truly amazing. Many people were skeptical about it.

Most rev. game: Mario 64 for the reason stated above.

Most improtant rev: 3D console (reasons stated above)

Most influential: Yet again, their move to 3D.

turtlethetaffer

You have to be the first at something or change the status quo to be "revolutionary". Did they improve some franchises by making them 3D, no doubt about it. But they weren't revolutionary in the 3D field because Playstation, Saturn, and 3DO were all doing it before N64 came out.

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"]You are really trying to hide the fact you have no clue what you're saying. Comapring a console that sold around 1 million, or heck ok, 500,000 to a console that sold 60 million is That's a 59.5 difference. Comparing a console that sold 21 to one that sold 150 is 129 difference. Using your own poor logic, the Lynx did better than the Gamecube did. You still ahve not learned ANYTHING from profit =/= sales and you insist on still using that nonsense as an argument when it's just doing nothing but backfriring. And I prove you have no idea about third-party support and then say they don't matter using logic that can be applied to every system releaed. That's jsut pretty sad really. I am also not assuming anything, Atari themselves said it was popular. Atari in the later half of the Lynx, was losing money in the software market, The Lynx was still being supported when they dropped computers for focus on the jaguar, and eventually after the canned 32-bit prototype, they had to focus on the jaguar entirely since that was there only way to make up for that money, which they used for that project and the quick turn around to rush out plans for the Jaguar.Byshop

Math is clearly not your strong suit. 500k unit sales compared to the Gameboy's 118 million units sold means the Gameboy sold 200 times more units than the Lynx. The PS2 sold about 7.5 times the number of units the Gamecube did, and yet you still think that's an apples to apples comparison. Tetris for the Gameboy alone sold 60 times more better than the entire Lynx console (and by extension any game on that console unless you think that every Lynx owner was buying 2 or more copies of each game). The Gameboy's game library was also more than 10 times the size of the Lynx library, which is really where the bulk of the money gets made anyway.

Atari's handheld market share was pathetically small, so no, I don't consider it to be "sucessful". The last thing that Atari put out that could really be called successful was the 2600, but since then nothing they've produced has been able to hold a candle to its competitors. You clearly are an Atari fanboy if you're trying -this- hard to claim that Atari was doing well during these periods.

-Byshop

denying the console game industry crash ever happened.Jag85

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

And out of those 4 million, how many were after the re-release after NES was released, and how much was during that very limited 1984 release that you keep claiming meant home industry wasn't dead?

Not even 500,000 I'd be willing to bet.

The video crash of the 80s in the U.S. is a well documented event that isn't even a point of debate. The Atari 7800 didn't save it, not even freaking close. The NES did. I can't believe this has even been this big of a debate. There are entire books and websites dedicted to the crash.

Just because it was made then, doesn't mean the market wasn't dead. If stores don't want to carry your product, and video games are being sold for a fraction of the cost of their actual worth, then that's a dead market. And the Atari 7800 did nothing to help it. The NES on the other hand...

Emerald_Warrior

Okay, you're right. All the countless documentation regarding it, Ultimate Gaming History book, Game Over, Wikipedia, G4 Icons, and countless other sources are all wrong. The market wasn't dead in the U.S. and was flourishing. You're points have proven decades of documented gaming history wrong. :roll:

No, you didn't specifically say the words "the Atari 7800 saved the market". But you pointed it out as a reason why the market wasn't dead. If that wasn't an insuation to it, I don't know what is.

And yes, some developers were doing okay. Most of them were also making PC games, though, which that market wasn't dead. The market also never died in Europe or Japan, so those that were international could sell in those regions. On the other hand, several more went under. Far, FAR more developers and console makers went under than survived. There's probably 3 times as many that went under than survived.

And you're really going to say the NES didn't do well until 3 years later? But at the same time claim that Atari 7800's 3.7 million and Atari Lynx's under 500,000 is impressive (or Colecovision's "succesful" 2 million)? So in Nintendo's case, they have to pull in huge numbers to be successful, but in Atari's case as long as they don't go under you consider it a success? Besides that: Super Mario Bros., The Legend of Zelda, Mega Man, Castlevania, Rad Racer, Metroid. These are genre defining games that re-established the way we play games for years and were all very successful. Super Mario Bros. alone sold millions of NES consoles.

And I don't know in what world you think $100 million is a good number for the video game industry. It went from that number to billions of dollars because of the NES. And before the crash happened it was making billions of dollars.

I mean come on, the NES was a cultural phenomenon. Video games went from something people considered a dead-fad, to becoming a household name. Mario became a household name overnight. Stores went from a glut of unsold game cartridges for pre-NES consoles, to consoles and NES games flying off the shelves. Before the NES, some retailers started refusing to carry video games altogether even. The NES is STILL a part of our culture. You see it all over the place on T-shirts, belt-buckles, posters, etc. still being sold to this day.

Again, like I've pointed out. This is a well documented, and well known part of gaming history. The home console market was, without a shadow of a doubt, dead in the U.S. before the NES came out and completely owned the home gaming industry until Sega could give them a run for their money. No matter how many random numbers you pull out, it doesn't change well-documented history. You could give me a list of 200 developers that were making games before the NES came out, and it just wouldn't matter because too many people back then just didn't care after the crash (especially retailers) until the NES came out. I was gaming when the NES was a brand-new system. There was a tangible excitement and sense of amazement with gamers back then when the NES came out.

Watch this video for some insight (G4 Icons was such a good show, wish it was still on); or even better, read "The Ultimate History of Gaming", it is a fantastic read I highly recommend if you're into the history of the game industry, so much insight in that book straight from developers and industry insider's mouths:

G4 Icon's video for the Video Game Crash:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuHbRPoOEEA

Ultimate History of Gaming Book Link:http://www.amazon.com/The-Ultimate-History-Video-Games/dp/0761536434/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366944488&sr=8-1&keywords=ultimate+history+of+gaming

Basically, quality control. Nintendo got the quality control boat rolling when no one else at that point had. Basically anyone could make 2600 games, with Nintendo you had to have your games approved. There are a few unlicenced Nintendo games such as the wisdom tree bible games, but they are much fewer than for the 2600/clecovision/intellivision/etc.Sali217

The Nintendo Seal of Quality only guaranteed that the developer jumped through certain legal hoops, like exclusivity conditions, that Nintendo made the actual cartridge and that your NES wouldn't blow up if you played that game. Other than that, the NES' shovelware to quality games ratio was abysmal. So awful, in fact, that as soon as youtube became mainstream, several people became instant celebrities by reviewing crappy, nearly unplayable NES games. Of course, the NES had a crapton of great games, but you can count NES shovelware in the (several) hundreds.

Where this idea that the Seal of Quality meant Nintendo actually checked all those NES and SNES games' quality is something that confuses me a little bit. Chances are, no offense, that most of you who say that didn't actually live that era. Don't get me wrong, it was great and tons of fun and everything, but for each gem, for each Megaman 2 or Dragon Warrior, you had to dodge dozens of horrible games like Who Framed Rogger Rabbit?, Back to the Future, and Total Recall. 

The gpa in sale sbetween the Lynx and gameboy is smaller than the Gamecube4 and OS2, your math is horrible or you're just trolling. I also am not a fanboy, those had to be a success to have to project being worjked on when they were losing money on the PC market and then canel one of them and release the jagaur and able to even market it. That money came from somewhere, it's common se4nse it was a combination of the Lynx which was supported for a darn long time, there software, and some PC market. ImJESUS-PROam

Assuming what you are trying to say with this borderline illiterate sentence is that the "gap" between the Lynx and the Gameboy is smaller than the gap between the Gamecube and the PS2...

Gamecube sold roughly 22 million units. The PS2 sold 155 million units.

Lynx sold 500 THOUSAND units roughly (not even 1 million). The GB sold 120 MILLION units.

There are indivudal GAMES for the Gameboy that sold 60 times more than any game for the Lynx (or the Lynx itself). The Lynx was #4 on Gamepro's top ten worst selling handhelds of all time list, doing only slightly less worse than the Game.com, the Tapwave Zodiac, and the Gizmondo.

You have to be trolling at this point because nobody could be this stupid.

-Byshop

[QUOTE="Jag85"]denying the console game industry crash ever happened.ImJESUS-PROam

No, I'm referring to a guy with a different username I remember debating with on this very same topic. That's why I was asking if you had a previous username here before.

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"]The gpa in sale sbetween the Lynx and gameboy is smaller than the Gamecube4 and OS2, your math is horrible or you're just trolling. I also am not a fanboy, those had to be a success to have to project being worjked on when they were losing money on the PC market and then canel one of them and release the jagaur and able to even market it. That money came from somewhere, it's common se4nse it was a combination of the Lynx which was supported for a darn long time, there software, and some PC market. Byshop

Assuming what you are trying to say with this borderline illiterate sentence is that the "gap" between the Lynx and the Gameboy is smaller than the gap between the Gamecube and the PS2...

Gamecube sold roughly 22 million units. The PS2 sold 155 million units.

Lynx sold 500 THOUSAND units roughly (not even 1 million). The GB sold 120 MILLION units.

There are indivudal GAMES for the Gameboy that sold 60 times more than any game for the Lynx (or the Lynx itself). The Lynx was #4 on Gamepro's top ten worst selling handhelds of all time list, doing only slightly less worse than the Game.com, the Tapwave Zodiac, and the Gizmondo.

You have to be trolling at this point because nobody could be this stupid.

-Byshop

120-500,000=119.5 155-21.7=133 Which is the bigger number? The one at the bottom. Why can't you do simple math?ImJESUS-PROam

Because it's the wrong math. If you use that idiotic logic, you could say that you invented your own console called the "ImJESUS-ProamIdiotBoxPlus" that sold zero units, but then claim that the gap between your non-existent console is greater than the gap between the Lynx and the GB since you sold 0 while the PS2 sold 133 million. Obviously, this makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. 

The question is, of total console sales for that class/generation when comparing the consoles to each other to see who got the bigger market share (hint: it was Nintendo). Again, the Lynx sold .005% the number of units the Gameboy did. Not even 1 percent of Nintendo's sales, much less total handheld sales for that generation. That is just sad. Even the Nomad sold more than the Lynx. 6 years of support sounds great on paper, but they only released 71 games over 6 years (an average of just under 12 games a year). That is also abysmal.

I'll say it again: Gamepro magazine's 4th worst selling console of all time.

-Byshop

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Okay, you're right. All the countless documentation regarding it, Ultimate Gaming History book, Game Over, Wikipedia, G4 Icons, and countless other sources are all wrong. The market wasn't dead in the U.S. and was flourishing. You're points have proven decades of documented gaming history wrong. :roll:

No, you didn't specifically say the words "the Atari 7800 saved the market". But you pointed it out as a reason why the market wasn't dead. If that wasn't an insuation to it, I don't know what is.

And yes, some developers were doing okay. Most of them were also making PC games, though, which that market wasn't dead. The market also never died in Europe or Japan, so those that were international could sell in those regions. On the other hand, several more went under. Far, FAR more developers and console makers went under than survived. There's probably 3 times as many that went under than survived.

And you're really going to say the NES didn't do well until 3 years later? But at the same time claim that Atari 7800's 3.7 million and Atari Lynx's under 500,000 is impressive (or Colecovision's "succesful" 2 million)? So in Nintendo's case, they have to pull in huge numbers to be successful, but in Atari's case as long as they don't go under you consider it a success? Besides that: Super Mario Bros., The Legend of Zelda, Mega Man, Castlevania, Rad Racer, Metroid. These are genre defining games that re-established the way we play games for years and were all very successful. Super Mario Bros. alone sold millions of NES consoles.

And I don't know in what world you think $100 million is a good number for the video game industry. It went from that number to billions of dollars because of the NES. And before the crash happened it was making billions of dollars.

I mean come on, the NES was a cultural phenomenon. Video games went from something people considered a dead-fad, to becoming a household name. Mario became a household name overnight. Stores went from a glut of unsold game cartridges for pre-NES consoles, to consoles and NES games flying off the shelves. Before the NES, some retailers started refusing to carry video games altogether even. The NES is STILL a part of our culture. You see it all over the place on T-shirts, belt-buckles, posters, etc. still being sold to this day.

Again, like I've pointed out. This is a well documented, and well known part of gaming history. The home console market was, without a shadow of a doubt, dead in the U.S. before the NES came out and completely owned the home gaming industry until Sega could give them a run for their money. No matter how many random numbers you pull out, it doesn't change well-documented history. You could give me a list of 200 developers that were making games before the NES came out, and it just wouldn't matter because too many people back then just didn't care after the crash (especially retailers) until the NES came out. I was gaming when the NES was a brand-new system. There was a tangible excitement and sense of amazement with gamers back then when the NES came out.

Watch this video for some insight (G4 Icons was such a good show, wish it was still on); or even better, read "The Ultimate History of Gaming", it is a fantastic read I highly recommend if you're into the history of the game industry, so much insight in that book straight from developers and industry insider's mouths:

G4 Icon's video for the Video Game Crash:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuHbRPoOEEA

Ultimate History of Gaming Book Link:http://www.amazon.com/The-Ultimate-History-Video-Games/dp/0761536434/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366944488&sr=8-1&keywords=ultimate+history+of+gaming

ImJESUS-PROam

I've already addressed this above:

I'm having deja vu... What was ImJESUS-PROam's previous username? I remember arguing with him (or someone just like him), denying the console game industry crash ever happened.

Anyway, if he's still going to deny it, here are some hard cold numbers of annual North American home video game market (i.e. excluding arcades) revenues:

1982 - $3.8 billion

1983 - $2 billion

1984 - $800 million

1985 - $100 million

1986 - $430 million

1987 - $750 million

1988 - $2.8 billion

1989 - $3.5 billion

1990 - $5.1 billion

In other words, the North American home video game industry dropped from $3.8 billion in 1982 to $100 million in 1985, with the majority of that $100 million coming from home computers. How can anyone possibly deny there wasn't any console industry crash? And then it went from $100 million in 1985 to $2.8 billion in 1987, so how can anyone deny the NES wasn't responsible for reviving the console gaming industry?

If that's not enough evidence, then just look at articles written during that time. One that immediately comes to mind is Electronic Games magazine, which in 1985 stated that the console gaming industry is dead and that personal computers are the future of home video gaming, cautioning Nintendo they are making a big mistake trying to release the NES to a dead console market (i.e. the same old "Nintendo is doomed" narrative).

Jag85

In other words, the NES quadrupled the industry's revenue from 1985 to 1986, nearly doubled that in 1987, and nearly quadrupled that again in 1988... And yet you still deny the NES's impact on reviving the North American console gaming industry?

And by the way, those figures are for the entire home video gaming market, not just consoles. The majority of that $100 million figure for 1985 came from computer gaming, not console gaming. For all intents and purposes, console gaming was dead, which is exactly what publications from that time were saying.

[QUOTE="Sali217"]Basically, quality control. Nintendo got the quality control boat rolling when no one else at that point had. Basically anyone could make 2600 games, with Nintendo you had to have your games approved. There are a few unlicenced Nintendo games such as the wisdom tree bible games, but they are much fewer than for the 2600/clecovision/intellivision/etc.LordQuorthon

The Nintendo Seal of Quality only guaranteed that the developer jumped through certain legal hoops, like exclusivity conditions, that Nintendo made the actual cartridge and that your NES wouldn't blow up if you played that game. Other than that, the NES' shovelware to quality games ratio was abysmal. So awful, in fact, that as soon as youtube became mainstream, several people became instant celebrities by reviewing crappy, nearly unplayable NES games. Of course, the NES had a crapton of great games, but you can count NES shovelware in the (several) hundreds.

Where this idea that the Seal of Quality meant Nintendo actually checked all those NES and SNES games' quality is something that confuses me a little bit. Chances are, no offense, that most of you who say that didn't actually live that era. Don't get me wrong, it was great and tons of fun and everything, but for each gem, for each Megaman 2 or Dragon Warrior, you had to dodge dozens of horrible games like Who Framed Rogger Rabbit?, Back to the Future, and Total Recall. 

Sure, but the majority of the NES's shovelware never made it outside of Japan. When it came to the North American market, Nintendo were careful when it came to which Japanese titles they brought over (though they probably weren't as picky when it came to local North American shovelware). A lot of those YouTube videos dissing bad NES games were usually Japan exclusive titles. Another thing to keep in mind is that a lot of games that were considered classics at the time may be considered bad today simply because of how dated they are, not because they were bad for their time. This is especially the case for Japanese games that were released too late in North America, like for example the infamous Hydlide, which was considered a breakthrough in Japan in 1984 but wasn't released in North America until 1989, by which time Zelda had already changed the action-RPG landscape.

As for what the Seal of Quality really meant, it didn't necessarily mean how good of bad a game was, but whether or not it was bug-free. In the Atari 2600 era, a lot of games often suffered from game-ruining bugs, so the Nintendo Seal of Quality was just a way to avoid those kinds of game-ruining bugs from appearing in NES games. In fact, that was the main reason cited for why a few Japanese Nintendo classics weren't released West-side, such as Seiken Densetsu 3 on the SNES, for example.

[QUOTE="Byshop"]

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"]You are really trying to hide the fact you have no clue what you're saying. Comapring a console that sold around 1 million, or heck ok, 500,000 to a console that sold 60 million is That's a 59.5 difference. Comparing a console that sold 21 to one that sold 150 is 129 difference. Using your own poor logic, the Lynx did better than the Gamecube did. You still ahve not learned ANYTHING from profit =/= sales and you insist on still using that nonsense as an argument when it's just doing nothing but backfriring. And I prove you have no idea about third-party support and then say they don't matter using logic that can be applied to every system releaed. That's jsut pretty sad really. I am also not assuming anything, Atari themselves said it was popular. Atari in the later half of the Lynx, was losing money in the software market, The Lynx was still being supported when they dropped computers for focus on the jaguar, and eventually after the canned 32-bit prototype, they had to focus on the jaguar entirely since that was there only way to make up for that money, which they used for that project and the quick turn around to rush out plans for the Jaguar.ImJESUS-PROam

Math is clearly not your strong suit. 500k unit sales compared to the Gameboy's 118 million units sold means the Gameboy sold 200 times more units than the Lynx. The PS2 sold about 7.5 times the number of units the Gamecube did, and yet you still think that's an apples to apples comparison. Tetris for the Gameboy alone sold 60 times more better than the entire Lynx console (and by extension any game on that console unless you think that every Lynx owner was buying 2 or more copies of each game). The Gameboy's game library was also more than 10 times the size of the Lynx library, which is really where the bulk of the money gets made anyway.

Atari's handheld market share was pathetically small, so no, I don't consider it to be "sucessful". The last thing that Atari put out that could really be called successful was the 2600, but since then nothing they've produced has been able to hold a candle to its competitors. You clearly are an Atari fanboy if you're trying -this- hard to claim that Atari was doing well during these periods.

-Byshop

That's pretty hilarious coming from a guy who sounds completely ignorant of elementary level ratios and percentages.

 

Sure, but the majority of the NES's shovelware never made it outside of Japan. 

Jag85

Uh? I was there, I'm not Japanese, and I had to dodge dozens of horrible games to get to the good ones. And I don't mean "by today's standards," they were bad, end of the story. Us 80s kids them and we had to deal with them all the time to get to the good stuff. 

I'm not going by what the Angry Video Game Nerd or other youtube reviewers say. I was there. Shovelware was ubiquitous. It was still a golden era, sure, but crap was all over the place.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"] The test market saw success which is why the device was kept and released later, jack could have dropped it at anytime and you are still avoiding the issue. I never said the 7800 saved it and you know this you put that there on purpose, I said the industry was not dead. And the 7800 showed there was still interest for the companies that were involved in the crash. There were comapnies that still broke even after and during the crash. Not to mention the NES did not help the industry the year it was released, before the market became as big as it used to in terms of revenue and etc, it took them around 3+ years to even do that. Which would have meant that the industry would have been "dead" for 5 years which is complete trash. Not to mention, comapnies like Coleco did not discontinue until 1985, why would you continue supporting something that is dead? Keep in mind the coleco was expensive to produce at the time until tis discontinuation. It was far ahead of the 2600 and intellivision, and came out a year before the crash. And not to mention again, several devs were fine, and I doubt with something that was dead would be continuing to support hardware or software. Yes the market crashed, but it was already satrting to rise again afterward, going over the industry $100 million before the NEs came. ImJESUS-PROam

Okay, you're right. All the countless documentation regarding it, Ultimate Gaming History book, Game Over, Wikipedia, G4 Icons, and countless other sources are all wrong. The market wasn't dead in the U.S. and was flourishing. You're points have proven decades of documented gaming history wrong. :roll:

No, you didn't specifically say the words "the Atari 7800 saved the market". But you pointed it out as a reason why the market wasn't dead. If that wasn't an insuation to it, I don't know what is.

And yes, some developers were doing okay. Most of them were also making PC games, though, which that market wasn't dead. The market also never died in Europe or Japan, so those that were international could sell in those regions. On the other hand, several more went under. Far, FAR more developers and console makers went under than survived. There's probably 3 times as many that went under than survived.

And you're really going to say the NES didn't do well until 3 years later? But at the same time claim that Atari 7800's 3.7 million and Atari Lynx's under 500,000 is impressive (or Colecovision's "succesful" 2 million)? So in Nintendo's case, they have to pull in huge numbers to be successful, but in Atari's case as long as they don't go under you consider it a success? Besides that: Super Mario Bros., The Legend of Zelda, Mega Man, Castlevania, Rad Racer, Metroid. These are genre defining games that re-established the way we play games for years and were all very successful. Super Mario Bros. alone sold millions of NES consoles.

And I don't know in what world you think $100 million is a good number for the video game industry. It went from that number to billions of dollars because of the NES. And before the crash happened it was making billions of dollars.

I mean come on, the NES was a cultural phenomenon. Video games went from something people considered a dead-fad, to becoming a household name. Mario became a household name overnight. Stores went from a glut of unsold game cartridges for pre-NES consoles, to consoles and NES games flying off the shelves. Before the NES, some retailers started refusing to carry video games altogether even. The NES is STILL a part of our culture. You see it all over the place on T-shirts, belt-buckles, posters, etc. still being sold to this day.

Again, like I've pointed out. This is a well documented, and well known part of gaming history. The home console market was, without a shadow of a doubt, dead in the U.S. before the NES came out and completely owned the home gaming industry until Sega could give them a run for their money. No matter how many random numbers you pull out, it doesn't change well-documented history. You could give me a list of 200 developers that were making games before the NES came out, and it just wouldn't matter because too many people back then just didn't care after the crash (especially retailers) until the NES came out. I was gaming when the NES was a brand-new system. There was a tangible excitement and sense of amazement with gamers back then when the NES came out.

Watch this video for some insight (G4 Icons was such a good show, wish it was still on); or even better, read "The Ultimate History of Gaming", it is a fantastic read I highly recommend if you're into the history of the game industry, so much insight in that book straight from developers and industry insider's mouths:

G4 Icon's video for the Video Game Crash:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuHbRPoOEEA

Ultimate History of Gaming Book Link:http://www.amazon.com/The-Ultimate-History-Video-Games/dp/0761536434/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366944488&sr=8-1&keywords=ultimate+history+of+gaming

I didn't say 10 seconds or any time frame, you did. I simply said the NES brought the home console back from the home console video game crash. Which you don't seem to think the crash ever existed. And you're a complete idiot if you really think you're right over countlessly numerous and well established documentation of the crash. You can go on living in your ignorant world where there was never a video game crash, because I'm done arguing in circles with someone who's just here to make himself look right over tons and tons of documention, history, and evidence pointing to one of the biggest events in gaming history. Because $100 Million is a healthy number in a BILLION dollar industry. :roll: You're the only moron on this entire thread that thinks the crash never happened. You've got numerous people giving you evidence at this point, not just me.

[QUOTE="Sali217"]Basically, quality control. Nintendo got the quality control boat rolling when no one else at that point had. Basically anyone could make 2600 games, with Nintendo you had to have your games approved. There are a few unlicenced Nintendo games such as the wisdom tree bible games, but they are much fewer than for the 2600/clecovision/intellivision/etc.LordQuorthon

The Nintendo Seal of Quality only guaranteed that the developer jumped through certain legal hoops, like exclusivity conditions, that Nintendo made the actual cartridge and that your NES wouldn't blow up if you played that game. Other than that, the NES' shovelware to quality games ratio was abysmal. So awful, in fact, that as soon as youtube became mainstream, several people became instant celebrities by reviewing crappy, nearly unplayable NES games. Of course, the NES had a crapton of great games, but you can count NES shovelware in the (several) hundreds.

Where this idea that the Seal of Quality meant Nintendo actually checked all those NES and SNES games' quality is something that confuses me a little bit. Chances are, no offense, that most of you who say that didn't actually live that era. Don't get me wrong, it was great and tons of fun and everything, but for each gem, for each Megaman 2 or Dragon Warrior, you had to dodge dozens of horrible games like Who Framed Rogger Rabbit?, Back to the Future, and Total Recall. 

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

Where did I say it was the first 3D console? Just saying that it definitely helped thigns out. And I said NES practically invented it... I know there are other systems besides the NES that were out before but the NES was more like the models we see today, where the others were different. It set the blue prints for future consoles.

Emerald_Warrior

You didn't post this?

Most revolutionary system: N64. It showed with several different franchises that a transition from 2D to 3D can be truly amazing. Many people were skeptical about it.

Most rev. game: Mario 64 for the reason stated above.

Most improtant rev: 3D console (reasons stated above)

Most influential: Yet again, their move to 3D.

turtlethetaffer

You have to be the first at something or change the status quo to be "revolutionary". Did they improve some franchises by making them 3D, no doubt about it. But they weren't revolutionary in the 3D field because Playstation, Saturn, and 3DO were all doing it before N64 came out.

Oh fine have it your way :P

I just meant when I said that Nintendo pracitcally invented home consoles, it's home consoles as we know them today... Plus it really revitalized the industry.

thinks the crash never happened. Emerald_Warrior

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"] The very sources you use have the NES not really bringing back the industry back to its high multi-million routes until 3 years after it came out in the U.S. The NES did not help rise the crash overnight, you cannot deny this, I have no idea why you continue to state or imply that the NES brought gaming back to its profits in 10 seconds. Also, your documents also show many companies doing well and that the console market was still worthmillion regardless of the crash, I mean do you want me to post tons of links and put quotes? I will do if if you want you seem to lack the ability to read your own sources or do research so just say the word and I will post many credible sources showing that the industry was not dead. Also Colecos 2 millionw as successful, Colecovision at the time was Colecos largest profit makers and making them multimillion dollars very fast. So your own smart*ss remark backfired.Jag85

I've already addressed this above:

I'm having deja vu... What was ImJESUS-PROam's previous username? I remember arguing with him (or someone just like him), denying the console game industry crash ever happened.

Anyway, if he's still going to deny it, here are some hard cold numbers of annual North American home video game market (i.e. excluding arcades) revenues:

1982 - $3.8 billion

1983 - $2 billion

1984 - $800 million

1985 - $100 million

1986 - $430 million

1987 - $750 million

1988 - $2.8 billion

1989 - $3.5 billion

1990 - $5.1 billion

In other words, the North American home video game industry dropped from $3.8 billion in 1982 to $100 million in 1985, with the majority of that $100 million coming from home computers. How can anyone possibly deny there wasn't any console industry crash? And then it went from $100 million in 1985 to $2.8 billion in 1987, so how can anyone deny the NES wasn't responsible for reviving the console gaming industry?

If that's not enough evidence, then just look at articles written during that time. One that immediately comes to mind is Electronic Games magazine, which in 1985 stated that the console gaming industry is dead and that personal computers are the future of home video gaming, cautioning Nintendo they are making a big mistake trying to release the NES to a dead console market (i.e. the same old "Nintendo is doomed" narrative).

Jag85

In other words, the NES quadrupled the industry's revenue from 1985 to 1986, nearly doubled that in 1987, and nearly quadrupled that again in 1988... And yet you still deny the NES's impact on reviving the North American console gaming industry?

And by the way, those figures are for the entire home video gaming market, not just consoles. The majority of that $100 million figure for 1985 came from computer gaming, not console gaming. For all intents and purposes, console gaming was dead, which is exactly what publications from that time were saying.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"] thinks the crash never happened. ImJESUS-PROam

Are you freaking kidding me right now?! Are you really saying that?! You weren't trying to make it out that the industry was fine because of the Atari 7800 and ColecoVision?! Now you're reduced to arguing semantics? "Dead" vs. "Crash". Give me a freaking break you piece of trash troll.

I really hope you get banned before you even make it to System Wars this time.

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"] thinks the crash never happened. Emerald_Warrior

Are you freaking kidding me right now?! Are you really saying that?! You weren't trying to make it out that the industry was fine because of the Atari 7800 and ColecoVision?! Now you're reduced to arguing semantics? "Dead" vs. "Crash". Give me a freaking break you piece of trash troll.

I really hope you get banned before you even make it to System Wars this time.

Somehow as soon as I saw his screen name I knew it was Another48Hours. 

The guy isn't worth getting upset about. Let him get banned again, it's just a matter of time before it happens.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"] If you don't put words in peoples mouth to make you feel better than show me where i said this. i already had Jag back down from the same statement, show me where I said that? this is why you keep being stubborn and changing my questions around, because you want to believe and make people reading seem like I said this so that your posts would make sense, but they don't. I honestly don't know why you do this i did nothing to you. I never made any such claim or anything similar to it. All I sad was the industry was not dead, which it wasn't. Not that it never crashed, not that people did not go out of business, not that only few survived, you know this and then decided to go on a pathetic rant of meaningless based on nothing but something you made up because you want to make it seem like I am arguing about something completely different so your internet rep goes up.Shenmue_Jehuty

Are you freaking kidding me right now?! Are you really saying that?! You weren't trying to make it out that the industry was fine because of the Atari 7800 and ColecoVision?! Now you're reduced to arguing semantics? "Dead" vs. "Crash". Give me a freaking break you piece of trash troll.

I really hope you get banned before you even make it to System Wars this time.

Somehow as soon as I saw his screen name I knew it was Another48Hours. 

The guy isn't worth getting upset about. Let him get banned again, it's just a matter of time before it happens.

This thread pretty much confirms it.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="ImJESUS-PROam"] If you don't put words in peoples mouth to make you feel better than show me where i said this. i already had Jag back down from the same statement, show me where I said that? this is why you keep being stubborn and changing my questions around, because you want to believe and make people reading seem like I said this so that your posts would make sense, but they don't. I honestly don't know why you do this i did nothing to you. I never made any such claim or anything similar to it. All I sad was the industry was not dead, which it wasn't. Not that it never crashed, not that people did not go out of business, not that only few survived, you know this and then decided to go on a pathetic rant of meaningless based on nothing but something you made up because you want to make it seem like I am arguing about something completely different so your internet rep goes up.Shenmue_Jehuty

Are you freaking kidding me right now?! Are you really saying that?! You weren't trying to make it out that the industry was fine because of the Atari 7800 and ColecoVision?! Now you're reduced to arguing semantics? "Dead" vs. "Crash". Give me a freaking break you piece of trash troll.

I really hope you get banned before you even make it to System Wars this time.

Somehow as soon as I saw his screen name I knew it was Another48Hours.

The guy isn't worth getting upset about. Let him get banned again, it's just a matter of time before it happens.

And what's the point? He'll just make another screen name and start pissing everyone off all over again, like he has about 50 times already now.

[QUOTE="Shenmue_Jehuty"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Are you freaking kidding me right now?! Are you really saying that?! You weren't trying to make it out that the industry was fine because of the Atari 7800 and ColecoVision?! Now you're reduced to arguing semantics? "Dead" vs. "Crash". Give me a freaking break you piece of trash troll.

I really hope you get banned before you even make it to System Wars this time.

Emerald_Warrior

Somehow as soon as I saw his screen name I knew it was Another48Hours.

The guy isn't worth getting upset about. Let him get banned again, it's just a matter of time before it happens.

And what's the point? He'll just make another screen name and start pissing everyone off all over again, like he has about 50 times already now.

I don't know about you, but I can usually spot his new profiles from a mile away; they seem to involve the same themes and types of words I've noticed. He also has a very distinct posting style and likes to post the same types of threads that he has posted in previous accounts. The best way to get rid of a troll is to ignore them and by giving him any kind of attention, especially negative, it just fuels his trolling even more, that is why I choose to ignore his threads and comments. Just don't post anymore in threads he creates. I will do my best to identify them and warn others before posting. Of course people can post on his threads and his comments if they want, but I have chosen to ignore him and everyone else that wishes to get rid of him should as well.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="Shenmue_Jehuty"]

Somehow as soon as I saw his screen name I knew it was Another48Hours.

The guy isn't worth getting upset about. Let him get banned again, it's just a matter of time before it happens.

Shenmue_Jehuty

And what's the point? He'll just make another screen name and start pissing everyone off all over again, like he has about 50 times already now.

I don't know about you, but I can usually spot his new profiles from a mile away; they seem to involve the same themes and types of words I've noticed. He also has a very distinct posting style and likes to post the same types of threads that he has posted in previous accounts. The best way to get rid of a troll is to ignore them and by giving him any kind of attention, especially negative, it just fuels his trolling even more, that is why I choose to ignore his threads and comments. Just don't post anymore in threads he creates. I will do my best to identify them and warn others before posting. Of course people can post on his threads and his comments if they want, but I have chosen to ignore him and everyone else that wishes to get rid of him should as well.

My problem is that I give everyone the benefit of the doubt because I welcome new legitimate members to the legacy forum. By the time I figure out it's him, I'm already multiple posts into the conversation. That is unless he makes his new username painfully obvious like he did the last time.

Oh well, I'm sure I'll get a moderation for this thread because I lost my cool earlier, even though the rest of us know his M.O.. I just wish there was a way to block his I.P. address so this B.S. would stop happening.

This thead reminds me alot of this one.

And this one as well.

If you argue with him, you're just giving him what he wants. ;)

-

Your age = Between 30 and 40.

What do you think is Nintendo's most revolutionary system? GameBoy (1) - It revolutionised handheld gaming, and crossed the borders into encouraging non-gamers to play.

What do you think is Nintendo's most revolutionary game(s)? (An explanation is optional) - Haven't played enough Nintendo to offer a qualified opinion.


Most influential thing they've done to change how both they and other companies have made games and consoles? - Tied-up the market for kids games. If you're buying a young gamer his/her first console then Nintendo's always been the one to have.

This fellow has been around since before EddieMurphy48 got banned again, so the idea that he may be Another48hours (again) is very unlikely. Unless he had two alt accounts running around at the same time (which honestly wouldn't surpirse me knowing that fella).

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

I've already addressed this above:

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

I'm having deja vu... What was ImJESUS-PROam's previous username? I remember arguing with him (or someone just like him), denying the console game industry crash ever happened.

Anyway, if he's still going to deny it, here are some hard cold numbers of annual North American home video game market (i.e. excluding arcades) revenues:

1982 - $3.8 billion

1983 - $2 billion

1984 - $800 million

1985 - $100 million

1986 - $430 million

1987 - $750 million

1988 - $2.8 billion

1989 - $3.5 billion

1990 - $5.1 billion

In other words, the North American home video game industry dropped from $3.8 billion in 1982 to $100 million in 1985, with the majority of that $100 million coming from home computers. How can anyone possibly deny there wasn't any console industry crash? And then it went from $100 million in 1985 to $2.8 billion in 1987, so how can anyone deny the NES wasn't responsible for reviving the console gaming industry?

If that's not enough evidence, then just look at articles written during that time. One that immediately comes to mind is Electronic Games magazine, which in 1985 stated that the console gaming industry is dead and that personal computers are the future of home video gaming, cautioning Nintendo they are making a big mistake trying to release the NES to a dead console market (i.e. the same old "Nintendo is doomed" narrative).

ImJESUS-PROam

In other words, the NES quadrupled the industry's revenue from 1985 to 1986, nearly doubled that in 1987, and nearly quadrupled that again in 1988... And yet you still deny the NES's impact on reviving the North American console gaming industry?

And by the way, those figures are for the entire home video gaming market, not just consoles. The majority of that $100 million figure for 1985 came from computer gaming, not console gaming. For all intents and purposes, console gaming was dead, which is exactly what publications from that time were saying.

No it wasn't the PC market wasn't that big in the first place. And you also proved my point. In 1884 the industry was 800,million, which was actually still stable, everyoen lost most money and most advances died around 1985 end of 84. Where it went from $800 100 million, it too Nintendo, as I said, until 98 before the industry was back to being stable. So gaming was dead for 4 years? I don't think so.

In 1985, the computer game market was larger than the console market. This is obvious from the fact that leading North American video games magazines at the time, most notably Electronic Games, stopped covering consoles entirely and replaced it with coverage of the rising computer game market. A 1985 issue of Electronic Games had some brief news on the upcoming NES, but dismissed it, proclaiming the console market is dead and that Nintendo is doomed (how many times have we heard that before?). You can go on Google News and search for news articles from that time if that's not enough evidence for you.

As for your interpretation of the figures, you clearly have a poor understanding of market economics. Markets don't suddenly grow and decline overnight, but it's a gradual process. By 1984, the home video game market declined by a large 60% drop, and by 1985, it declined by an even larger 87.5% drop. It wasn't until the NES released in October 1985 that the console market started picking up again, with a huge 350% rise by 1986, a further 67% rise in 1987, and a further 273% rise in 1988. If you don't see the significance of these figures, then it seems you also have a poor understanding of percentages.